Who's ringing alarm bells about Bonk? Analysis – Job

Another critical article full of alarm bells about the “Bank of the Free”. A thousand in a short time. The “news” is spreading impatiently and I hear concerns all around me. In short: it will be unsafe to store your money with the Punk.

Interestingly, the source of the report is always the same journalist, Stijn Bronzweir. This seems credible as he is the former deputy editor and head of the media editorial board at the Norwegian Refugee Council.

But I noticed something that made me wonder to what extent there was still journalistic integrity in Bronzeware's reporting on the buck.

Stijn Bronzwaer (contributor) has published seventeen (17!!) articles about Bunq since 2021.

Well, you'd think a good guy would have a lot of press interest in banks, right?

No, the last other article he writes about a bank dates back to 2015 (interesting in context) – this one mentions Rabobank.

The striking common thread in all his articles about Bunq is the criticism of the character of founder Ali Niknam (he's too smart, too hard working, likes to do things his own way, has a lot of money, is demanding), Bronzeware always seems to bring up the same group (?) of anonymous ex-employees critical of Bunq as a source, Bunq does things differently and is (therefore) insecure.

It also hardly compares its findings with conditions in other banks.

For example, his reports of phishing victims at Bank emphasize poor service and insecurity. Victims are never compensated. The impression is given that as a bank, you are more likely to become a victim of fraud than another bank.

But if you look at the numbers, you will see that last year there were 10,000 cases of phishing (banking help desk fraud) in the Netherlands, of which only 85 occurred in a bank (although this number includes the number of phishing victims, in reality there are less than 85). It is not known (to me) how many phishing victims there are in other banks.

Of course you can still write about those 85 victims at Bunq, and you can also write that people find it annoying that Bunq never contacted people and that the customer service after the scam was also mainly online (plus the emergency number). For example, a victim is cited who, after transferring her savings to a scammer herself, contacted another bank to help her file a report. Very strange, because I think you would usually call the police if you wanted to report it, not Rabobank.

But the important point is: Why do we give the impression that Bang is so unsafe with 85 victims compared to 9,915 victims in other places?

And then pay compensation. There are simply legal guidelines for this. Bankoq is committed to this (just like other banks). Why pretend that money defines its own rules?

But today there was “big news” again: Bunq employees were secretly searching each other's bank accounts and those of customers. This is how (again) four (same?) anonymous, dissatisfied former employees explain it. The article published in NRC Handelsblad – of course by Stijn Brunswehr (and Meren Rangers) – includes screenshots that give the impression that concerns were expressed internally several years ago. I say “give an impression” because these are separate parts of conversations, where suddenly employees are no longer anonymous because obviously that's not necessary when people don't want to participate in an article, and the NRC reader has to decide for themselves what the context was and how the conversation went In its entirety.

Anyway, there will be no control. Complete chaos in Bing, that's what the article makes it seem. But the question is: Is this true?

When the Norwegian Refugee Council informed Bunq about the four former employees who, according to them, were secretly spying “because it was possible and it was very tempting because they wouldn’t find out anyway” (I wonder what that says about these former employees). Bunq immediately reported it to the Dutch Data Protection Authority.

However, the NRC keeps its sources confidential (logically), so Bonk cannot make a concrete announcement.

In this article, Stijn appears to be making a comparison with other banks. In the past five years, he writes, 43 employees at banks such as ING, Rabobank and ABN Amro have been taken to disciplinary tribunal after they were caught hacking into accounts. He also says that at Bunq all employees can view the system, at all other banks it is not possible.

It suggests that if you have a bank account, more people can 'peek' at your account than if you bank with ING Bank (for example).

ING employs a total of 51,000 people. Bunq employs just over 500 people. (This was just 100 years ago.)

When I look at these numbers, I can imagine that the total number of employees who can see your ING account is greater than the number of employees who can see your Bunq account. And if you compare these numbers, I think the number of 43 people caught hacking into accounts and then taken to court is a very large number. Furthermore, we know that most cases never end up before the Disciplinary Committee. The logical question to ask (by Stijn Brunsauer, for example) is: How many warnings do banks actually give before going to court? How many ING employees have secretly spied on the accounts of their former friends or colleagues? We do not know.

Stijn Bronzwaer points out that the number of people who have received a warning is zero in the bank, “because the bank's control is weak”, but on what basis is that actually based, apart from these four dissatisfied former employees whose behavior did not reflect anything great ethical? Ali Niknam, CEO of Bunq, says, as you can read on the NOS website, that people have already been reprimanded. Why didn't Stijn Bronzwaer write that? It's all like free play at the tables.

Is it time for a comparative study of the major banks? Because to drop this newcomer – of whom I am a very satisfied and engaged customer – is highly questionable and, to say the least, very bad press.